Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vishram Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 25 April, 2018
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 659/2018
Vishram Gurjar S/o Shri Badri Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Ward No.12, Vasundhara Vihar, Police Station Chaksu, District
Jaipur. (Accused Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hemant Gajraj with Mr. Mamraj Jat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 25/04/2018
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 24.03.2018 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Cases, Jaipur, whereby bail application under Section 167(2) read with Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.
2. F.I.R. No. 238/2017 was registered at Police Station Tunga, Jaipur (East) for offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 of I.P.C. Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(W) SC/ST Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that from the order sheet dated 14.03.2018, it is revealed that matter was kept pending for filing of charge-sheet.
4. It is contended that the Court did not apply its mind even if it is considered that charge-sheet was presented on 19.02.2018.
5. It is also contended that charge-sheet was provided to the (2 of 3) [CRLAS-659/2018] appellant on 11.04.2018 i.e. after expiry period of 90 days, hence appellant was entitled to bail.
6. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on "Shankerlal Nai Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2007 Volume 3 R.C.C. Page 1217,"
wherein, accused was granted bail as charge-sheet did not bears the signature of the Presiding Officer.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. Their contention is that charge-sheet was filed within time.
8. I have considered the contentions.
9. A report was sought from the concerned Court as to why there was variance in the order sheet and in the impugned order with regard to date of filing of charge-sheet. Reply has been received, wherein the Court has mentioned that charge-sheet was filed on 19.02.2018. Office was directed to present the charge- sheet with the remand papers on 14.03.2018.
10. It is also mentioned in the letter that concerned Clerk was on leave, as a result of which he did not place the charge-sheet along with remand papers.
11. Considering the fact that charge-sheet was filed on 19.02.2018 and there is a report of the concerned Officer to place it along with remand papers no ground is made out for allowing the appeal. Hence, appeal preferred by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.
12. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.
13. Judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant has no (3 of 3) [CRLAS-659/2018] applicability to the facts of the case, as in the present case charge-sheet was produced before the concerned Court within 90 days and there was a report by the Officer to place it along with remand papers on 14.03.2018.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Amit/52